Connect with us

News

Hoods, headphones on protesters prompt Portland police explanation after questions

Published

on

 

Portland police released a video Thursday and a longer explanation of why they placed hoods and headphones on several protesters who blocked traffic at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office the day before in Southwest Portland.

The video, taken by police, shows officers cutting a “sleeping dragon” – devices that use pipe, tape and other materials to bind arms together — off one man wearing one of the form-fitting hood.

Some demonstrators at the scene complained about the tactic, and police spokesman Sgt. Chris Burley said the Police Bureau received questions about what officers were doing as stark images of the hooded protesters flew out on social media.

Using the equipment is part of training from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on how to safely remove sleeping dragons and similar devices, Burley said. Sometimes protesters fashion them out of cast iron, metal, concrete, tar and other materials, he said.

The device typically works by having people put their hands inside a pipe and lock their arms and wrists together with chains, handcuffs or another method, Burley said. Officers have to remove the sleeping dragon device before removing any of the people attached to them so they’re not injured, he said.

The flame-retardant hood protects people from sparks that come from the use of power tools and the headphones decrease the noise, he said. On Wednesday, officers used utility knives and wire cutters to cut the devices, which consisted of plastic pipe, chicken wire, yarn, fabric, steel bolts and chains. The hoods protected the protesters from flying debris, he said.

“It’s not a common tactic, but other jurisdictions use similar methods when encountering these devices on protesters,” Burley said. “We use all these materials as a precaution to make sure the person is safe. There have been instances in other places where a person sees or hears the tools being used to free them and tries to cause harm themselves with the tools being used to help them.”

Burley said Portland officers used a similar tactic with a helmet and headphones in May 2015 when 41-year-old Tim Norgren blocked a private railroad line overnight at a Northwest Portland fuel terminal and locked his arm in a large barrel filled with cement and other materials.

Police used power tools to saw Norgren’s arm free, Burley said. Norgren was charged with second-degree criminal trespass. The case was later dismissed after he completed community court, records show.

On Wednesday, no one was hurt when police to cut the devices, he said. Five of the protesters were bound together with the sleeping dragons, he said.

Amina Rahman, one of those protesters, told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Wednesday that officers also tied a tourniquet around her arm. She said they told her it would stop the bleeding if they accidentally cut her.

Rahman said she believed the officers were using a “scare tactic,” not protecting protesters.

Authorities cited and released six protesters for failure to comply with verbal warnings and blocking a federal building, said Federal Protective Services spokesman Rob Sperling. He didn’t release their names.

They were among a few dozen people with a group called End Deportations Now Collaboration who had gathered at the front of the ICE building, chanted and sang for hours as police and security guards looked on until arrests began.

Demonstrators blocked a bus carrying immigrants to a Tacoma detention center. Demonstrators also blocked more than 50 people, including workers, couldn’t enter or leave the ICE building during the protest, Burley said.

Portland police arrested Eli Richey, 37, on suspicion of violating court-ordered restrictions at the same demonstration, but it wasn’t related to the protest, police said.

Samantha Matsumoto of The Oregonian/OregonLive staff contributed to this report.

Source: Hoods, headphones on protesters prompt Portland police explanation after questions

Continue Reading
Comments

News

WATCH: Copwatch | Gang Unit Vehicle Stop Foot Bail | Tossed Gun | Man Tasered

Published

on

San Diego Copwatch April 10, 2018

4000 Chamoune ave. City Heights, Mid-City San Diego

*Subscribe to My Backup Channel: IRATE Copwatch https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6JE…

Please consider donating to my Patreon Campaign to continue my efforts holding police accountable through Copwatching. https://www.patreon.com/IrateProductions

You can also donate to my Paypal at paypal.me/Uaptsd Copwatch Playlist: https://tinyurl.com/UAPTSDCOPWATCH Outro Music by *Gravy Beats* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaaC…

★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

©IRATE Productions https://www.facebook.com/irateprod/

United Against Police Terror – San Diego https://www.facebook.com/uaptsd/ https://twitter.com/UAPTSD https://uaptsd.org/

★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

Image1.jpg

Continue Reading

News

POLICE claim Man said ‘shoot me’ twice before he was shot to death by police, Audio Experts Heard Different

Published

on

Las Vegas Metro police shot and killed a 22-year-old man early Friday morning after he reached for a weapon and defied commands repeatedly, police said.

 

Officers Francisco Rivera, 28, and Padilla Mills, 23, were involved in the shooting in the 200 block of Madge Lane, near Charleston Boulevard and Sloan Lane.

Assistant Sheriff Brett Zimmerman on Monday said officers were on their way to another call when they spotted Junior David Lopez driving recklessly with two women in a blue Chrysler 300.

“Hey, what are you doing? Stay in the car man,” one of the officers yelled. “Stay in the ****ing car! Don’t move! Do not ****ing move!”

When officers stopped the vehicle, Lopez got out of the vehicle with a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 firearm in his hand then tossed it on the ground, police said.

Zimmerman said Lopez defied officers’ commands to put his hands up and step away from the weapon. Instead Lopez grabbed the firearm and raised it, he said.

“Hey, get away from the gun!” officers yelled. “Do not move! Don’t reach for the gun, man. Do not reach the gun.”

Officers believe the body camera footage shows Lopez twice saying the words “shoot me.”

“I don’t know what was going through his head, but he was given ample opportunity to be taken into custody and he wasn’t,” Zimmerman said.

Officers Rivera and Mills both fired their weapons. Lopez fell to the ground and rolled over. Police say he reached for the guns once more. Officer Mills fired one more round, striking Lopez.

“We’re going to need medical for the subject,” one of the officers said, over his radio. “He’s reaching. Don’t reach for it! … His 4-13 is about one foot from his left hand. Don’t!”

Lopez was taken to Sunrise Hospital where he later died at 5:15 a.m.

The two women in the car were not injured. One was Lopez’ girlfriend and the owner of the vehicle. The other was a friend.

Both women on Monday night.

“I remember when we got pulled over they told us to get the **** out of the car, for him to get the **** out of the car. Why don’t I hear that in the video?” said Lopez’s girlfriend, Amber. “He was the best thing in my life… He said, ‘Don’t shoot me. Don’t shoot me. Don’t shoot me.’ You can’t hear the don’t, but you can hear him. ‘Don’t shoot me. Don’t shoot me.'”

Assistant Sheriff Brett Zimmerman said 22-year-old Junior Lopez told officers to shoot him, twice.

“I don’t know what was going through his head but he was given ample opportunity to be taken into custody and he wasn’t.”

Lopez’s girlfriend said he was yelling, “Don’t shoot me!”

Lopez’s girlfriend also says officers told him to get out of the car… before they yelled at him to get back in the car. She argues that the first portion was conveniently cut out of the video released today.

“Everything they said is not true,” said Jorge Luis Martinez, Lopez’s father. “The video is not complete. ”

Lopez had one prior charge for false statement to a police officer in North Las Vegas in 2016

Both officers have been employed with Metro since May 2016. They are both assigned to the Community Policing Division Northeast Area Command. They were both placed on routine paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Continue Reading

News

Freedom of Speech Everywhere except a Courthouse so Says the US Attorney General

Published

on

How an anti-illegal immigration YouTuber turned a $280 fine into a federal criminal trial

How an anti-illegal immigration YouTuber turned a $280 fine into a federal criminal trial

Gary Gileno

Gary Gileno is shown outside the federal courthouse on Friday before his trial. Gileno was fighting a $280 citation for failing to comply with orders while trying to bring a video camera into a L.A. County Sheriff oversight meeting in 2017. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

 

It began as a $280 citation for using a video camera in a courthouse.

But to Gary Gileno, at stake was much more than the couple hundred bucks he was told to pay.

An attorney for the anti-illegal immigration activist and prolific YouTuber told a judge Friday that the four-hour trial over the fine was really about preventing government abuse of power, protecting the rights of journalists and ensuring that citizens can hold public officials accountable.

“If he is convicted … it’ll chill speech, it’ll chill journalism, it’ll say the federal government has a superpower to do whatever it wants,” attorney William Becker said. “This is unprecedented. This is what we expect to see in a police state.”

A federal prosecutor dismissed the rhetoric, arguing the Class C misdemeanor charge was simply about Gileno’s refusal to follow a security officer’s orders.

The unusual legal battle came after Gileno, 32, tried to bring a video camera into a meeting of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission last year. California law specifically allows the public to use recording devices at such meetings, but the commission’s meeting in August was held at a federal appellate court building where filming is prohibited.

Someone just detained at federal courthouse, where public Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission meeting takin place, 4 trying 2 take pic

The commission, a civilian panel set up to monitor the Sheriff’s Department and listen to public concerns about the agency, had been gathering in different locations around the county since it began meeting in January 2017. This was the first time commissioners had met at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals building in Pasadena.

As Gileno entered the courthouse, deputy U.S. marshals told him he had to leave his camera in his car. Gileno insisted he had a right to record the meeting under the First Amendment and the state’s open meetings law, known as the Brown Act, and began filming the officers.

They responded by handcuffing and detaining him for about an hour.

After Gileno was cited, Robert C. Bonner, a former federal judge who chairs the commission, told The Times he wasn’t aware of certain provisions of the state’s open meetings law and relied on the county’s lawyers for legal advice.

Rather than pay the fine, Gileno opted to take his case to trial, facing a penalty of up to a $10,000 fine and 30 days in jail if found guilty.

Gileno, who began his YouTube career after showing up at his local council meeting in West Covina, said he has made a living off of his channel in recent years. His copious videos — 3,237 and counting — focus primarily on denouncing illegal immigration and promoting supporters of President Trump. His criminal case may have been a boon for his channel — a recent screed on his own prosecution was viewed more than 10,000 times.

On Friday, two court security officers who clashed with Gileno took the stand and testified that there were signs clearly posted saying photography wasn’t allowed in the courthouse. They said Gileno grew belligerent and disruptive, turning on his camera after being warned several times that it was not allowed.

Testifying in his own defense, Gileno said he was a freelance citizen journalist who has attended and filmed local government meetings and legislative town halls for about five years.

“I believe in the United States of America, you should be able to keep tabs on the government,” he said.

In more than 250 other public meetings he attended, he said, he never had an issue with bringing in his video camera. He said the security officer all of a sudden “exploded” at him, so he turned on his camera “to document what I felt was a violation of my rights at the time.”

Assistant U.S. Atty. Benedetto Lee Balding said Gileno’s disruption of security officers working at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was no small matter. It was Gileno who escalated the encounter by refusing to go along with the officers’ orders, he said.

“He decided unilaterally he didn’t have to follow the rules,” the prosecutor said.

Becker, who primarily represents conservatives and Christians in free-speech cases, worked for free on Gileno’s case. He argued that the federal courthouse essentially became a “limited public forum” when it hosted the commission meeting, which Gileno should have been allowed to film under the state law.

Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth said she could understand why Gileno was angry and frustrated given his past experience filming the meetings, but she said that didn’t excuse his failure to follow orders. Security at the appellate courthouse, where justices could be filmed without their knowledge, was a serious concern, the judge said.

“Even if these seem arbitrary or don’t make any sense to Mr. Gileno or anybody else, clearly they serve this very important purpose,” Rosenbluth said, finding Gileno guilty.

Acknowledging that a “misunderstanding” had led to the kerfuffle, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of no fine, which would leave Gileno having to pay just $35 in court fees. Rosenbluth said she felt the need for “some consequences” and ordered Gileno to pay a $50 fine, bringing his total penalty to $85 with the fees.

Gileno said he was “outraged” and “astounded.” After the verdict, he turned to nine supporters in the audience, including a man in a red “Make California Great Again” hat, and exclaimed, “I was never read my rights!”

His attorney said they would seriously consider an appeal and possibly a civil lawsuit against the government.

“What the judge just said is if a city council can move to a federal building, they can keep the meeting secret,” Gileno said. “That’s grossly illegal.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Black Coat Media "Revolutionary Media"

%d bloggers like this: